Graf Zeppelin is given priority and completed, then...

Yes, that is how the USN calculated radius by the end of the war. Lundstrom, Woodbury and Parshall all mention a 175 mile range (out of 700 miles, 670 nautical) for the F4F and TBD, morever, had the range been as short as you indicate no escort could have been sent at Midway, and clearly that was not the case so they must be correct. Maybe you are looking at earlier or later data, certainly not contemporary with Midway and actual early war use. I would love to find how the IJN calculated radius.

11 of 26 F4Fs launched from The USN CVs ran out of fuel as did 7 of 35 Enterprise SBDs.

The Enterprise SBDs were the ones that went the farthest before turning NW and then NE to find the IJN and the actually 10 of those that ditched did so when Enterprise, not the aircraft, failed to make the rendezvous point. The F4Fs that ditched were mainly Hornet's and were the ones escorting Ring's fools errand.

The Yorktown aircraft launched, searched and attacked the IJN did so without much trouble.

The "88" in my name does not refer to "HH" and therefore has no political connotations or in any way means support for the absurd so-called nazi ideology, it is just a number that I have used for a long time since it is easy to remember.

JAG88 wrote:The USN was running a long range carrier war, there was hardly any need for 1.000Kg bombs, you needed the range. If, as in the case that sprang this discussion, a carrier is to run into a slow BB escorting a convoy the carrier can always close the range enough to use the larger bombs needed to hurt a heavily armoured target, lesser or softer targets can be attacked with 250Kg or 500Kg GP, SAP or AP bombs depending on the tactical situation.

My understanding is that 1000lb bombs were routine. Typically the aircraft spotted carried 500lb bombs because of shorter take off length and the aircraft further back would carry the 1000lb; I'm positive 1000lb bombs were used (along with 500lb) on the IJN CVs at Midway.

JAG88 wrote:The USN was running a long range carrier war, there was hardly any need for 1.000Kg bombs, you needed the range. If, as in the case that sprang this discussion, a carrier is to run into a slow BB escorting a convoy the carrier can always close the range enough to use the larger bombs needed to hurt a heavily armoured target, lesser or softer targets can be attacked with 250Kg or 500Kg GP, SAP or AP bombs depending on the tactical situation.

My understanding is that 1000lb bombs were routine. Typically the aircraft spotted carried 500lb bombs because of shorter take off length and the aircraft further back would carry the 1000lb; I'm positive 1000lb bombs were used (along with 500lb) on the IJN CVs at Midway.

The USN did use 1000lb (1000lb not 1000kg!) bombs at Midway. Yes, SBD's with the longest TO run would carry a single 1000lb bomb, some would carry 1x 500 and 2 x 100lb and the aircraft first to launch would carry 1 x 500lb. Later in the war the TBF/TBM was used to drop a number of 2000lb bombs. I know that on occasion the SB2C-4 carried 2 x 1000lb bombs.

Yes, that is how the USN calculated radius by the end of the war. Lundstrom, Woodbury and Parshall all mention a 175 mile range (out of 700 miles, 670 nautical) for the F4F and TBD, morever, had the range been as short as you indicate no escort could have been sent at Midway, and clearly that was not the case so they must be correct. Maybe you are looking at earlier or later data, certainly not contemporary with Midway and actual early war use. I would love to find how the IJN calculated radius.

11 of 26 F4Fs launched from The USN CVs ran out of fuel as did 7 of 35 Enterprise SBDs.

The Enterprise SBDs were the ones that went the farthest before turning NW and then NE to find the IJN and the actually 10 of those that ditched did so when Enterprise, not the aircraft, failed to make the rendezvous point. The F4Fs that ditched were mainly Hornet's and were the ones escorting Ring's fools errand.

The Yorktown aircraft launched, searched and attacked the IJN did so without much trouble.

The point is that the aircraft exceeded their combat radius. Some got lucky and managed to set down before running dry, but it is obvious that all were running low.

Larrikin22 wrote:Gunners used very high proportion tracer loads. The objective of the gunner was to make the incoming fighter flinch. And the bombers were supposed to fly in tight formations to mass their fire.

It all became moot when fighters went to cannons and the bombers were only running rifle calibre defensive guns.

As for the effectiveness of the massive firepower available to B-17 formations, that is exactly why the Luftwaffe went to the head on attack. It was the one zone not covered by defensive guns in the earlier model B-17s, and why the later models got themselves nose guns.

All that tracer putting them off is a wonderful idea but if Sturmbock aren't put off by actual hits I don't see it doing much actual good.Head on attacks weren't just because of the guns' layout - Liberators were attacked head on too and Polish squadrons in the BoB used the tactic.The B-17 was unusually vulnerable even with the extra guns, the armour was all laid out to protect from the rear, meaning the tail gunner was the only guy with armour between him and head on fire. In addition the "gunners" at the front were other trades (bombadier for the chin turret). Less than half of a US heavy bombers gun positions were manned by course trained gunners, usually tail and ball turrets IIRC sometimes with the mid upper.

"Be harmonious, enrich the soldiers, and scorn all other men"
"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster himself."
"We take pride in the terminatory service we provide"

Yes, that is how the USN calculated radius by the end of the war. Lundstrom, Woodbury and Parshall all mention a 175 mile range (out of 700 miles, 670 nautical) for the F4F and TBD, morever, had the range been as short as you indicate no escort could have been sent at Midway, and clearly that was not the case so they must be correct. Maybe you are looking at earlier or later data, certainly not contemporary with Midway and actual early war use. I would love to find how the IJN calculated radius.

11 of 26 F4Fs launched from The USN CVs ran out of fuel as did 7 of 35 Enterprise SBDs.

The Enterprise SBDs were the ones that went the farthest before turning NW and then NE to find the IJN and the actually 10 of those that ditched did so when Enterprise, not the aircraft, failed to make the rendezvous point. The F4Fs that ditched were mainly Hornet's and were the ones escorting Ring's fools errand.

The Yorktown aircraft launched, searched and attacked the IJN did so without much trouble.

The point is that the aircraft exceeded their combat radius. Some got lucky and managed to set down before running dry, but it is obvious that all were running low.

But which combat radius? Spruance was mislead by an inaccurate report and launched his planes 182 miles away from the KB in the belief they were just 155 miles away, had he considered that 105nm was his fighters max radius he would have not sent the strike... or at least not the fighters since they would have not made it there in any case. He deliberately delayed the strike in order to get inside the 175 mile combat radius of F4Fs and TBDs and thus send a coherent strike force.

The "88" in my name does not refer to "HH" and therefore has no political connotations or in any way means support for the absurd so-called nazi ideology, it is just a number that I have used for a long time since it is easy to remember.

The point is that the aircraft exceeded their combat radius. Some got lucky and managed to set down before running dry, but it is obvious that all were running low.

But which combat radius? Spruance was mislead by an inaccurate report and launched his planes 182 miles away from the KB in the belief they were just 155 miles away, had he considered that 105nm was his fighters max radius he would have not sent the strike... or at least not the fighters since they would have not made it there in any case. He deliberately delayed the strike in order to get inside the 175 mile combat radius of F4Fs and TBDs and thus send a coherent strike force.

The USN had very optimistic opinions regarding combat radius in the first 6-7 months of the war, which is why the F4F-4 radius was revised downward:

The F4F-4 has very high fuel consumption in the climb and during combat which is why it's combat radius is so poor. Given the weather in the North Atlantic, it would have been quite probable that combat radius would be calculated on a very conservative basis.

Chris, I'm giving you the theory behind gunners, of which my father was one. I've also talked to WWII fighter pilots about it.

According to the pilots the gunners definitely made their life harder, which is why they tended to go looking for a shot out side the gunners' arcs. Remember that bombers, with the exception of BC, flew in formations that were intended to maximize defensive firepower, so you aren't talking about just one gun shooting at you from those formations, but at least several, and often many.

Larrikin22 wrote:Chris, I'm giving you the theory behind gunners, of which my father was one. I've also talked to WWII fighter pilots about it.

According to the pilots the gunners definitely made their life harder, which is why they tended to go looking for a shot out side the gunners' arcs. Remember that bombers, with the exception of BC, flew in formations that were intended to maximize defensive firepower, so you aren't talking about just one gun shooting at you from those formations, but at least several, and often many.

Yes, but while gunners made a contribution, where was it enough?Maybe over Malta or Darwin but not usually in the BoB nor over Germany. Why did the Luftwaffe abandon formation attacks by day and go to night bombing in what was a stream of unformated a/c, and what happened to their losses?Like I said defensive guns did make a difference, but both to the immediate defence and to the costs and performance of the a/c that carried them. What exact sitch made gunners worthwhile and what did not I couldn't say but plainly the Red Air Forces felt they were better off with in an a/c that had been designed for one anyway then adapted for single seat use while the Luftwaffe, RAF and USAAC over Japan all chose to use darkness. The Halifax is an interesting case, the nose turret was judged to be more trouble than it was worth but the dorsal was upgraded.US heavies over Germany opened up their formations once the fighter threat was suppressed by their escorts to reduce their losses to FlaK so relying on defensive guns increases your FlaK casualties on top of the other penalties.Germany upgraded defensive guns to the extent that large numbers of 7.92mm MGs were converted to ground use, the Sovs replaced ShKas with 12.7mm, the US B-17s replaced their few .30" with .50" and the RAF moved to twin .5" instead of quad .303" in tail turrets. The RAF at least debated the loss of morale effect from 4 x 1,100 rpm of tracer to 2 x 700rpm but in the end chose destructive effect over morale effect.

For a dive bomber operating from a carrier I think an escort is essential if there is any opposition worth the name, hence don't bother with gunners. For a purpose designed a/c the difference would seem to be roughly that between a Fulmar and a Sea Hurricane. Same engine, same sort of period and nationality of design, one single seat and one two, albeit he wasn't actually meant to be a gunner.

"Be harmonious, enrich the soldiers, and scorn all other men"
"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster himself."
"We take pride in the terminatory service we provide"

The point is that the aircraft exceeded their combat radius. Some got lucky and managed to set down before running dry, but it is obvious that all were running low.

But which combat radius? Spruance was mislead by an inaccurate report and launched his planes 182 miles away from the KB in the belief they were just 155 miles away, had he considered that 105nm was his fighters max radius he would have not sent the strike... or at least not the fighters since they would have not made it there in any case. He deliberately delayed the strike in order to get inside the 175 mile combat radius of F4Fs and TBDs and thus send a coherent strike force.

The USN had very optimistic opinions regarding combat radius in the first 6-7 months of the war, which is why the F4F-4 radius was revised downward:

The F4F-4 has very high fuel consumption in the climb and during combat which is why it's combat radius is so poor. Given the weather in the North Atlantic, it would have been quite probable that combat radius would be calculated on a very conservative basis.

Yeah, it also highlights how subjective those calculations can be, they not only depend on the doctrine of the user but on the technical specifications of each particular engine. In any case, I dropped the Ju-87 and replaced it with the Fieseler since it cant carry a torpedo and the Fi-167 can dive bomb as well.

The "88" in my name does not refer to "HH" and therefore has no political connotations or in any way means support for the absurd so-called nazi ideology, it is just a number that I have used for a long time since it is easy to remember.

Yeah, it also highlights how subjective those calculations can be, they not only depend on the doctrine of the user but on the technical specifications of each particular engine. In any case, I dropped the Ju-87 and replaced it with the Fieseler since it cant carry a torpedo and the Fi-167 can dive bomb as well.

I would note that the Fi-167 doesn't have folding wings. This would reduce the air complement considerably.

Give the RN a mix of Sea Hurricanes and Swordfish; either can bomb not much worse than a Skua. Swordfish is the same argument as Fi-167 instead of Ju-87 really, were Bf-109Ts planned to carry bombs?

"Be harmonious, enrich the soldiers, and scorn all other men"
"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster himself."
"We take pride in the terminatory service we provide"

The Fi 156 C-2 Storch also had folding wings. Though not intended for carrier ops, the Storch would have made for an interesting role in working with spies and such along coastlines. It likely wouldn't have needed an arrestor hook or catapult fittings.

ChrisPat wrote:Give the RN a mix of Sea Hurricanes and Swordfish; either can bomb not much worse than a Skua. Swordfish is the same argument as Fi-167 instead of Ju-87 really, were Bf-109Ts planned to carry bombs?

I think the Fi-167 would have been fine for the Graf Zeppelin's role. If a biplane TSR was more than good enough for the RN FAA, it's good enough for the KM. Provided GZ survives long enough, in addition to torpedo and bombs, I see no reason the Fi-167 wouldn't be able to operate BK 37 cannons and modified Werfer-Granate 21 rockets in the anti-shipping role. The greater lift of the Fi-167's biplane configuration would be useful carrying a host of weaponry for killing convoys, provided either BF-109 cover or no CVEs present. I doubt the Fi-167 could lift a 3,000 lb Fritz-X glide bomb, but perhaps a lighter version could be developed.

Yeah, it also highlights how subjective those calculations can be, they not only depend on the doctrine of the user but on the technical specifications of each particular engine. In any case, I dropped the Ju-87 and replaced it with the Fieseler since it cant carry a torpedo and the Fi-167 can dive bomb as well.

I would note that the Fi-167 doesn't have folding wings. This would reduce the air complement considerably.

Yes, 5m wide folded for the Stuka, 5.8m wide for the Fieseler and 3m (actually 2.12m but the elevators and propeller are 3m) wide for the Bf-109T, they could have fit 72 aircraft (28+44) with some space to spare, or go "full Japanese" and fit 82 (29+53, more if you want a larger fighter component):

If you are wondering how people would move through a pic of a Fi-167 might give you an idea:

You hire dwarfs as your aircrew!

That crate is 4,8m tall.

And a schematic of Akagi to give an idea of what the Japanese were getting away with:

No idea how they moved the planes...

The "88" in my name does not refer to "HH" and therefore has no political connotations or in any way means support for the absurd so-called nazi ideology, it is just a number that I have used for a long time since it is easy to remember.

Looking at that crowded gridlock of planes, you have to wonder why the specification for the A6M and D3A didn't require folding wings. The B5N had them, first flying in 1937, so surely the benefit of folding wing was evident to someone at IJN carrier aircraft procurement? By the time the A6M first flew in April 1939 both the USN and RN had folding wing aircraft on their carriers. Even the French Marine Nationale had folding wing Dewoitine D.371s since 1934.